Posted
by
timothy
on Tuesday October 15, 2013 @10:07AM
from the just-initial-here-and-here-and-here-and-here dept.

realized writes "The Obamacare website Healthcare.gov has a hidden terms of service that is not shown to people when they sign up. The hidden terms, only viewable if you 'view source' on the site, says that the user has 'no reasonable expectation of privacy regarding any communication or data transiting or stored on this information system.' Sadly, the taxpayer-funded website still does not work for most people, so it's hard to confirm – though when it's fixed in two months, we should finally be able to see it."
Note: As the article points out, that phrasing is "not visible to users and obviously not intended as part of the terms and conditions." So users shouldn't worry that they've actually, accidentally agreed to any terms more onerous than the ones they can read on the signup page, but it's an interesting inclusion. What's the last EULA you read thoroughly?

Congress had to pass it before they could figure out what it meant. This was written by lobbyists and bureaucrats each piece designed to make money for some individual company with no regard to what it means on the whole.

Every congress critter that votes on any piece of legislation that they do not understand should be thrown of of their position. After they are raped and killed.
Any law that can not be understood by someone without a law degree in 20 minutes should be null and void. Complicated laws are always wrong.

And fuck every piece of shit that has said "Their ought to be a law" in the last 50 years.

Your views on this government really align with mine, I thought I was the only one who thought this way.
There should be no such thing as career politicians. They are exactly what is wrong with this country.
Obamacare is also a train wreck for small businesses. I have seen this first hand.

Are you sure? The harder they fail at fixing the current mess, the harder it'll be for them to get hired afterwards. Nothing disillusions the supporters of a broken system like its colossal, unmitigated, blatant failure.

Are you sure? The harder they fail at fixing the current mess, the harder it'll be for them to get hired afterwards. Nothing disillusions the supporters of a broken system like its colossal, unmitigated, blatant failure.

In total agreement.

Both sides are constantly blaming the other for the deadlock in Congress. They haven't passed a budget since April 2009. That is one of the things the Constitution requires them to do, and they haven't done their job in almost five years.

Both sides blame the other. And both sides are right. It is like the expression "No individual raindrop believes it caused the flood."

Just like the raindrops, it isn't an individual drip that caused it, it is ALL of them together. Even the ones that are trying to make it better, they still bear some responsibility for the problems. Because ALL of them are responsible, ALL of them should be fired. Many people say "Not my congresspeople, they represent my views!" No. All of them contributed to the mess, ALL of them should go.

I don't want to see things fail. I would much prefer to be watching a colossal success and the establishment of policies that the entire world holds up as monuments to human achievement. Instead we are watching doomsday debt clocks, there are discussions about global economic collapse, and millions of people wonder about losing their livelihood. I don't like watching things fail, but if they do fail, I hope it fails in such a way that people will again seize control of government, rather than letting government seize them. The best failures are the ones that lead to change and future success.

And yet, before Obama became president, we didn't seem to have problems passing budgets. At what point is pragmatism going to reemerge? At some point people will recognize that there's a common denominator underlying all these problems.

The Republicans? If you recall the Republicans did the same thing they are doing now when Clinton was president. Since Reagan their M.O. has been to spend and borrow recklessly while they have control of the White House and oppose everything when the Dems have the White House.

Congress is ALREADY required by the ACA to use the plans available from the exchange.

Whomever tells you they have an exemption is a fucking liar.

What is now on the table is whether or not Congress (including the staffers who are not particularly well paid) will get a subsidy like everyone else who has employer covered healthcare insurance does.

What is now on the table is whether or not Congress (including the staffers who are not particularly well paid) will get a subsidy like everyone else who has employer covered healthcare insurance does.

Republicans tried to embarrass the Democrats by requiring Congress members and and their staff to go to the exchanges. Democrats embraced the proposal except it created the dilemma where the Federal Government has no means to make contributions towards exchange-purchased insurance, and since the government offers insurance but the individuals are required to go to the exchanges, they don't technically qualify for the subsidy either. They shot themselves in the foot with the requirement (not that it's a bad requirement) and they're just trying to figure out how to pay for the benefit they already received.

Ironically, if the employer mandate wasn't delayed a year (still don't know what was up with that), it would seem to me that Congress could have been fined for dropping coverage for their employees upon the ACA go-live.

Congress is the only employer that is actually required by the ACA to drop their existing coverage of their workers and require them to purchase their own insurance (and contrary to popular belief, you don't have to purchase your insurance on the exchanges; that was just supposed to make it easier - although so far that isn't the case - and would be the only way you get the subsidies if you were eligible for them)

All other employers (above 50 employees) are *required* to provide health insurance to their employees (although enforcement has been delayed a year). So yes, Congress got "exempted", but not in the way the ACA-haters are making it out to be. The "exemption" was actually put in by Charles Grassley, a republican, because he thought that this would kill the bill. However, congress actually said "sure, whatever, we don't have a problem going through the exchanges just like all the people who don't have coverage now". The "exemption" actually requires these employees to get their insurance through the exchanges (or on their own if they want), rather than to just stay on their employer's group plan like most other full time workers in the country.

The only remaining debate is whether to take the money that Congress was previously kicking in as a contribution to their employees' group health care and add it onto their employees' paychecks instead, which seems fair to me.

The only remaining debate is whether to take the money that Congress was previously kicking in as a contribution to their employees' group health care and add it onto their employees' paychecks instead, which seems fair to me.

The latest House proposal for increasing the debt limit specifies that the Pres and Congress must use Obamacare. Not sure if that means eliminating the outrageous 75% subsidy or not. I'm sure the Dems will reject.

Congress and federal employees have an employer-sponsored health plan just like millions of other Americans. The ACA is not intended to replace employer-sponsored plans. Why should Congress lose theirs when nobody else is?

It's kind of misleading to say "nobody else is". I know plenty of people who have already had their plans canceled or changed as a direct result of Obamacare; many more have already been warned of sharp premium increases by their insurance company due to Obamacare requirements, which may force some people to cancel plans they can no longer afford.

Ironically ACA specifically requires Congress and their staff to go to the exchanges to get their insurance. But since their employer provides insurance as well, it created a quagmire because the law says that they wouldn't qualify for subsidized insurance since the employer has a plan...that they can't get.

I want legislation limiting their healthcare and other benefits to those which are available to the general public.

To what purpose?

In January, the nonprofit Center for Responsive Politics' website unveiled a database detailing the minimum, average and maximum net worth of nearly every member of the current Congress.

The research shows many of them are rich. Very rich. The median estimated net worth of Congress is $966,000, according to the center. By contrast, the median net worth of the typical American household is slightly more than $66,000. Ten members had a net worth greater than $100 million on one or both sites.

It seems all the nonsense about Congress being exempt is nonsense. Congress is no more exempt than you or I am (assuming you're an American citizen). However, they do already have health insurance through their employer (the federal government) just like I have insurance from my employer, so I don't need to deal with the exchanges if I don't want to either. Spewing false facts would hurt the Republicans case more than help it... probably why they're not mentioning it. It's even possible some congressional a

My understanding of the exemption argument is that obama and congress will be subsidizing the healthcare of congress and staffers indepentent of the law's income qualifications through executive order and a slushfund.

That would certainly seem like a special exemption to me. The rest of the citizens who have to purchase healthcare do not get government subsidies unless their income is low enough.

We had a healthcare system that worked fine for everyone that could afford it. But that wasn't good enough for Liberals, so they created a new system that doesn't work for anyone, except those that cannot afford it. This is the problem with Liberals and Leftists. They have no idea what the unintended consequences are, only focusing on the poor people while ignoring the 60% of the people in the middle, screwing them every which way they can. They talk a good game, and people believe the "Yes We Can" sloganee

Universal Health Care doesn't work everywhere. I have relatives in France, and while HealthCare there IS Universal, it is Universally Bad. Most people try to avoid the system as much as possible because of how bad it is. AND it is going bankrupt.

... national insurance system has been running deficits since 1985 — it currently stands at $13.5 billion.

I buy excellent individual insurance now. My application to enroll on the exchange was just rejected, and I was told I need to enroll in medicaid, because my income is too low at 174% of the poverty line. I just got some quotes for insurance purchased off the exchange and my cost will increas 300%-500%, making buying insurance impossible for me to afford. So everyone is not going to be paying taxes into that. In fact I just got moved from the taxpayer to the dependent category. This law will be a disaster.

Insurance is, by definition, payment to mitigate risk. If one has the ability to back up that risk, as the 1% do, it is on average better to not get insurance. A bit of a gamble, yes, but the upper class gamble with their money all the time. Although I'm not rich, I still forego insurance whenever possible (such as the "extra insurance" offered for rental cars, which is absurdly high).

If one has the ability to back up that risk, (...) it is on average better to not get insurance.

I don't get why this concept is so hard for people to understand.

Like people taking out insurance for canceling a holiday trip. If you have paid up front for your vacation, then pretty much by definition you can afford to lose that money without ill effects worse than "I won't get to go on holiday this time"

Because the concept is wrong, and missing another very important concept in economics, psychology, and even biology. Informally speaking, when a person (or thing) has a large, important investment or resources/time/energy, it is more significant to lose the same amount of resources than to gain it. Even if the person can recover from the losses. And before some smart-ass replies, no, this is not the fallacy of sunk costs.

Health insurance isn't really insurance though (more's the pity), it's the powerful negotiator at the pricing table. Without it, you pay about triple.

I was always able to negotiate lower costs of dental care and routine physicals, when I self-insured. Pay cash, work out a deal, and it was lower cost than what insurance would cost. Did that for 10 years without much of an issue - just carried catastrophic health insurance with a $10,000 deductible that covered 100% above that level (which sounds extreme, but actually ends up being a better deal than the new Obamacare plans I have to choose from).

Not quite risk mitigation any more. The pre existing condition clause of the ACA means ypu can wait for the risk to become reality then mitigate costs. That is why it is neccesary to enslave everyone by penalty.

Insurance is, by definition, payment to mitigate risk. If one has the ability to back up that risk, as the 1% do, it is on average better to not get insurance.

This may be a good strategy for some (most?) types of insurance, like the rental car collision damage insurance you mentioned, but perhaps not for health insurance. Some health care costs can be quite high, far exceeding the price of the premiums, and having/using insurance can get you a much better rate on most of that, lowering your total expense.

For example, my wife died of a brain tumor (Glioblastoma Multiforme [wikipedia.org]) in 2006. The list (non-insurance) price for her chemotherapy medicine, Temodar [wikipedia.org] was $11,000 (not a typo) for a one-month supply (one bottle of pills); her HMO co-pay was $40 (forty) - my BC/BS co-pay would have been 10%. She would have needed 4 months, had she lived longer.

The list price for the treatment she actually received in the 7 weeks from diagnosis to death was about $300,000, but I only paid about $500 - her premiums were far less than the list price of her treatment.

I'm very sorry about your wife's death. I'm not sure how I would cope with that.

I would like to (delicately) point out what might have happened if you didn't have health insurance. Rather than paying $300,000, you and your wife would have had to come to terms that her time on Earth was now limited because you simply were not rich enough. Happens every day on this planet.Instead of painful chemotherapy, she would have been taking less expensive drugs to manage her pain while the two of you (or your families)

First, I'm asking, not telling. If it were me or my wife, I'd likely do the exact same thing they they did.I've not gone through this. I've heard others that have say they wish they would have let go instead of fight it. I was curious if he felt the same way.

Second, to answer "who do you think you are": As someone who pays for insurance but has not had such an expense, I'm one of the people that paid for her procedure.

I'm sorry to hear about your loss, It's fortunate that you did not have to become assistant manager at Los Pollos Hermanos. Seriously though, what happens to a spouses medical debts when they die? I'm presuming they can only go after joint debt, has anyone had to legally separate from their spouse to protect them from these costs?

Because Infrastructure of a national program doesn't count towards the cost of that program?

So the website itself cost "only" 50 some million. In order to make it work, they needed hundreds of millions more.

So if it costs, say, $50 million to build a bridge, and the roads that the bridge connects (and therefore makes the bridge actually work and be useful) cost $1 billion over 50 years, the bridge construction is 50 years late and $1 billion over budget?

If you had no plans to build a bridge somewhere (say, Alaska) and the bridge costs $50 million, but in order to get people to the bridge so they can cross it, then yes, the costs of the additional roads, etc to "make it actually work" is included in the costs.

If there was no Obamacare, there would be no website and no need for all the extra costs to enable it.

In other words, the engine is part of the cost of the car even though it is separately itemized in the price.

And this unused text string suggests the site is assembled from boilerplate, rather than a real custom, and thus expensive job.

I would expect well-tested boilerplate, by the way, to keep costs down. But it is government after all. We can do both! We don't have to choose! We can have cheap boilerplate and grotesquely expensive costs. We don't have to choose!!!

Even the source link [foxnews.com] points out that its not $634M (except, since it does so in a "Fair and Balanced" way, you can't really tell)
You can either actually read the article in gory detail, or better yet, go read this breakdown [ordinary-gentlemen.com] of the numbers.
TL;DR --> its around $55.7M (which is still a lot, but is - decidedly - not $634M)

It's not like we're PAYING for any of this through legitimate economic activity, reasonable taxed, against a sane government budget.
It's all a pile of crap made up on the fly, to land with a dull thud, hopefully later, likely sooner, on a bunch of disenfranchised victims.

One of the beginner classes I had to take in college was on different OSes. We were required to read every OS EULA before we installed it. And we were quizzed on it.

I won't say it's amazing how much crap you agree to (I'm looking at you Notepad, with your fancy limiting the number of cores I can run you on), but it's amazing that someone took the time to come up with all of that crap.

I thought that language is now a part of all american birth certificates. "Upon being pushed from an american vagina you have absolutely no expectation of privacy or actual security" or something like that.

It is standard boilerplate, with the HIPAA violation commented out. No part of this is either illegal, or a story. This is the definition of a non story, and your willingness to believe anything bad about Obama specifically or government in general let you swallow this horseshit whole.Please think before spewing more nonsense. And moderators, there is no +1 fits my preconceived notions". You have an obligation to minimally fact check.

Agreed.. It's just boiler plate US government stuff that you see on most of their computers and websites. It's there to tell authorized users that they are subject to monitoring and have no expectation of privacy when you log into the machine.

This language is there to prevent users from claiming that their personal information was improperly monitored when they where on the government owned system. But of course, that situation really doesn't apply here, now does it?

The contract was probably bid as protecting people's privacy and legal got to work right away regarding the terms of service.

But, the developers were probably never able to successfully implement, or were not given sufficient resources to implement, a truly secure system. This comment was probably included as a protest to cover their own asses when the contract goes sideways.

Seems a better option would simply to take the persons word for it up front, let them see the prices displayed depending on the personal and family information they entered and then only do the background verification after they "checkout" and actually purchase a plan. That way they just get an email later on if there is a problem with anything they entered or if the prices change based on something determined based on the background check and credit check. Or if as news reports suggest they are going to have to go through an income verification process as part of the Senate compromise, then doing the credit check up front in "real time" is an extra step anyway. Could even make the insurance companies do the final eligibility check as part of their 15% commission.

Trying to process through hundreds of millions of records in less than tens of seconds is a stupid thing to try to do just to keep people from finding out what your prices really are even if you have hundreds of millions of dollars to blow through.
They could have fully insured 100,000 more people for the money that has been wasted just on healthcare.gov.

Getting an email sounds like no big deal. But how would someone react to checking out on any site, and then finding out the product isn't shipping? How about when hundreds of thousands complain about the same thing? Finally, how about when a government agency says you bought something you are required to buy, then says sorry no you didn't?

That would have directly impacted lots of people who don't have the luxury of posting stupid ideas on tech sites.

This information is already available on multiple sources and on Healthcare.gov. I am fucking tired of these articles that have NOT been researched or are published with the intent of misleading people.

The actual fact is that healthcare.gov. in the first two weeks of operation has made plan price comparisons FAR easier than it has ever been. This could be a major consumer positive event in healthcare.

I'm pretty sure I'm not eligible for subsidies. But the system for figuring it out is a joke. It asks if I have any tax deductions such as student loan interest. So, I pulled out my tax return and put in practically every deduction. It isn't clear which deductions are eligible to be deducted.

Even so, between my income and my wife's I'm almost certainly not eligible for any subsidies based on the information I provided. So, for those of us whose self-input information indicates $0 subsidy, why not just let us see the price? It can't possibly be worse than my holy-fraking-expensive plan available through my employer.

So, I agree that they've set it up backward, and should take people's word on showing prices and just say "eligibility for reduced prices will be confirmed prior to purchase." But even with the current backward system, there is no reason that the unsubsidized prices shouldn't be shown for those of us whose information indicates that we aren't eligible for a subsidy.

Actually, he's taking charge of his own risk management, examining patches and determining if they're applicable. I seem to recall a McAfee update a few years back, that incidentally "bricked" a sizeable number of XP boxen. . .

From what I've read, there's a big loophole in it so you don't have to pay the fine either:

"Oh, and the IRS has no authority to go after someone’s assets or wages in order to collect the penalty. It only has the authority to deduct the penalty from a person’s tax refund at year’s end. It won’t take long for people to figure out how to fix that problem by trying to ensure they have only enough withheld to meet their tax obligation. Those who are uninsured and successful at hitting

It won’t take long for people to figure out how to fix that problem by trying to ensure they have only enough withheld to meet their tax obligation.

Well thats been me for over a decade now. I declare 3 exemptions on the federal when I actually "deserve" none, and at the end of the year I owe a few hundred bucks because of it. For a few years I tweaked in an addition flat withholding of $5, but then I realized something...

If I declared the 0 exemptions that I deserve I would be making thousands of dollars in over-payments, yet when I declare 3 exemptions that I don't deserve its only a few hundred in under-payments. Clearly there is something serious

>you're better off just paying the fineOnly if the entire family are smokers, or they are making a 6 figure salary. You can check it out at http://kff.org/interactive/subsidy-calculator/ [kff.org]A (non smoking) family making 50k will pay a maximum of $4500 per year. Single people will be half that. those making half that amount will be capped at 3% of salary.